Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[SteveS]

It's interesting that the museum said they would have bid on it had they thought it was legit. So they had the belief before the auction that it was fake. Of course they are under no obligation to inform the auction house of their concerns, but it would be interesting to know whether or not they did convey that information pre-auction. It just seems very difficult to be absolutely sure either way on a Shoeless Joe auto.

[ThomasL]

SteveS- this is not the first time this has been sold and when it hit the market the first time many experts chimed in that it was fake and believe told the auction house (cant remember which one) and it did no good

There was a big article on it back then but cant seem to find it now...maybe the Hauls of Shame covered it if memory serves me...

[SteveS]

ThomasL, thanks for the info! I assume the buyer who decided to drop that much money on it did his due diligence and knew about the controversy and was comfortable with the authentication.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by SteveS

It's interesting that the museum said they would have bid on it had they thought it was legit. So they had the belief before the auction that it was fake. Of course they are under no obligation to inform the auction house of their concerns, but it would be interesting to know whether or not they did convey that information pre-auction. It just seems very difficult to be absolutely sure either way on a Shoeless Joe auto.

Agreed. IT is interesting that it sold in Heritage Auction in 2015 and sold for I believe $179K so it has been around
Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Agreed. IT is interesting that it sold in Heritage Auction in 2015 and sold for I believe $179K so it has been around
Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

What collector in his right mind would trust unbiased Joe Jackson experts over JSA and PSA?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

What collector in his right mind would trust unbiased Joe Jackson experts over JSA and PSA?

Hi

I do not disagree with you.

I just do not understand why they did not say something prior to the auction (or even after the First Auction at Heritage) and instead waited to put out a TWEET after the auction.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

Originally Posted by jason.1969

What collector in his right mind would trust unbiased Joe Jackson experts over JSA and PSA?

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Hi

I do not disagree with you.

I just do not understand why they did not say something prior to the auction (or even after the First Auction at Heritage) and instead waited to put out a TWEET after the auction.

I doubt my viewpoint will surprise anyone here, but I'm not convinced that the "museum" isn't at least somewhat biased. First, the "museum" appears to be a single-family home, likely run by one guy and a few part-time volunteers. I'm not saying that to discredit him/them, I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot about Joe Jackson, but I doubt he would know much more than what anyone else could learn by reading the same publicly available information written about Jackson. What would make him (or the "museum") any more of an expert on Joe Jackson's signature than PSA's or JSA's experts? I also think it's irresponsible of him to put out a post saying "this is 100% fake" as if he could possibly know with that level of certainty. Not to mention he didn't provide a justification for his position. He just posted a couple of images of known Joe Jackson signatures from very late in Jackson's life at an age when many people have shakier signatures. I'm not saying it's 100% authentic, but I'm surprised at how much credence is given to the "museum's" opinion. Personally, I would take PSA's or JSA's opinion over the "museum's". It might be fake, but it also might not be.

One thing is clear though, there were two people who wrote on that photo. Whoever signed Joe Jackson's name and someone else who wrote the text below it.

[Republicaninmass]

The only way he'd know if it was 100% fake, is if HE signed it!

[SteveS]

It just seems fascinating to me that the museum says 100% fake, and in the "Strange Inheritance" episode swarmee posted above, at the 15:40 mark the host asks Steve Grad how sure he is that it's authentic, and he says 100%. No leeway in those opinions. So somebody has to be 100% right, and somebody has to be 100% wrong. And both are considered to be experts in the subject matter. I am neither an expert on Joe Jackson nor his autograph. But based on its scarcity and his known struggle with signing his name, I can't see any way to say with absolute certainty that a purported Joe Jackson signature is authentic (excluding the very obvious fakes, such as on a Bud Selig ball). Maybe someday in the future there will be a way to isolate DNA or a fingerprint on a 100 year-old photo that's been handled by many people. But I assume that the person who spent that much money on it did the research and is satisfied with the purchase. The trimmed Wagner sells for millions, despite everyone knowing that its trimmed.

In trying to find out more about this topic, I found this interesting Joe Jackson item on eBay. Maybe the seller is a member here. But apparently Joe practiced signing his name before placing a signature, and this is a piece of that practice attempt. So maybe his signature varied based on how much practice he got. In any event, after the sale price of the signed photo, maybe this is now a good bargain: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14272455219...AAAOSwpixarEdm

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I doubt my viewpoint will surprise anyone here, but I'm not convinced that the "museum" isn't at least somewhat biased. First, the "museum" appears to be a single-family home, likely run by one guy and a few part-time volunteers. I'm not saying that to discredit him/them, I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot about Joe Jackson, but I doubt he would know much more than what anyone else could learn by reading the same publicly available information written about Jackson. What would make him (or the "museum") any more of an expert on Joe Jackson's signature than PSA's or JSA's experts? I also think it's irresponsible of him to put out a post saying "this is 100% fake" as if he could possibly know with that level of certainty. Not to mention he didn't provide a justification for his position. He just posted a couple of images of known Joe Jackson signatures from very late in Jackson's life at an age when many people have shakier signatures. I'm not saying it's 100% authentic, but I'm surprised at how much credence is given to the "museum's" opinion. Personally, I would take PSA's or JSA's opinion over the "museum's". It might be fake, but it also might not be.

One thing is clear though, there were two people who wrote on that photo. Whoever signed Joe Jackson's name and someone else who wrote the text below it.

Here are some helpful tips for you snowman:

-Putting museum in quotes there to suggest some kind of slight and illegitimacy only highlights your ignorance on this topic so do yourself a favor and stop.

-Yes Joe Jackson and hobby experts, who have no incentive behind rendering an opinion, who know the nuances of Jackson's signature and his history, actually would know better than TPA employees and would actually give an unbiased opinion on the authenticity of a signature than would a company with an preexisting and financially beneficial relationship with an auction house who is selling and gaining a profit (via fees garnished from the sale) and advertisement by selling a rare autograph. To argue otherwise is either ignorant or you are just trying to be flippant...you are beyond naïve if you think TPA companies know better than actually historians and experts on any given narrowed field of study.

-with that...actually NO it is not "irresponsible" of him to put out his opinion, it actually could be said it is more his duty to do so given that he's one of maybe 5 people on the planet that could give such an opinion.

-If you read the 2015 thread about this photo you would see some of the well respect experts express that this is a fake and it has been well known/generally accepted within the hoppy as a fake since then.

-If you also read that you would see that no it isn't clear that "two people" wrote on that photo.

[Tabe]

To me, it seems like an obvious fake. The signature is way too nice to be Joe's but, more than that, the "Alexandria" gives it away. It's the same hand as the signature and no way Joe wrote that.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Personally, I would take PSA's or JSA's opinion over the "museum's". It might be fake, but it also might not be.

The same PSA and JSA that passed scores, if not hundreds, of fake autographs on vintage cards? Think I'll believe the historians.

[indy500autographs]

Originally Posted by edhans

The same PSA and JSA that passed scores, if not hundreds, of fake autographs on vintage cards? Think I'll believe the historians.

Yes, this. PSA is certainly not perfect. My opinion of their services went down dramatically when they authenticated an Eddie Sachs "signed" photo as authentic that is a well-known pre-printed handout. There are literally dozens of the exact same photo in the auto racing memorabilia world but they authenticated it as a legitimate autograph, which it absolutely is not.

[jad22]

Originally Posted by edhans

The same PSA and JSA that passed scores, if not hundreds, of fake autographs on vintage cards? Think I'll believe the historians.

There used to be a website that had the 100 most famous fakes that were certified. Can’t remember where.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Agreed. IT is interesting that it sold in Heritage Auction in 2015 and sold for I believe $179K so it has been around
Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

My guess...they might not have known it was up for auction until it was over (I honestly didnt know bc lets be real how often are we checking Christie's for sports auctions)...and also they might have emailed them we dont know...also what good would it do bc people actually did do that when it sold years ago for the first time when it hit the market and it was for not (which they are well aware of at the museum)

[SteveS]

They did know that it was up for auction as they said they would have bid on it had they felt it was real. Also, from what I can tell, they did not put out the initial tweet on the issue. Someone tweeted at them asking if the photo would be displayed at the museum at some point, and they responded to that with their opinion of it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good day for PSA, between the Jackson and the Gehrig.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good day for PSA, between the Jackson and the Gehrig.

Never get cheated! Never ever ever….

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Never get cheated! Never ever ever….

While they are maintaining their tradition of excellence, Orlando is long gone. The new regime had a chance to correct or catch their initial mistake of the 1926 Exhibit Gehrig and once again, balked, letting it go to market rather than correcting it.

Guys with deep pockets love buying illusions, it seems. And TPG is always there to deliver. I assume both of these debacles will remain in the hobby because after all, what do guys with opinions on hobby chat boards know about this kinda stuff? 0.0% chance PSA makes any effort to re-examine the Gehrig and the Jackson mistakes.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by SteveS

They did know that it was up for auction as they said they would have bid on it had they felt it was real. Also, from what I can tell, they did not put out the initial tweet on the issue. Someone tweeted at them asking if the photo would be displayed at the museum at some point, and they responded to that with their opinion of it.

That could have just been a flippant remark as Im sure it was well past the point and extremely hard to get registered to bid in that auction (I dont know just guessing there)

That tweet reply I think was made around 8pm est last night and the auction was over or just about over by then (cant find the exact ending time for it) So yes in fact it is very possible they didnt know it was up for auction until it was too late and your example here that they did is based on an incorrect judgment and assumption.

I would suggest asking Dan directly if you are so curious...instead of trying to make an issue out of nothing here.

I would also add what would be the point anyway? This item has been questioned before and well known to be questionable and the previous time attempts to raise a question/issue about it didnt stop it from being sold so why would it this time?

[SteveS]

Oh, I'm not saying the museum did anything wrong. I mentioned above that they are not obligated to volunteer their opinion. And in fact, they didn't bring it up until someone tweeted at them. PSA gave its opinion, the museum gave its opinion, and it's up to the buyer to decide whether he's happy with his purchase.

[ThomasL]

Got ya,

also for anyone who is interest in reading what this board thought about it when it hit the market back in 2015 here is the thread

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by SteveS

They did know that it was up for auction as they said they would have bid on it had they felt it was real. Also, from what I can tell, they did not put out the initial tweet on the issue. Someone tweeted at them asking if the photo would be displayed at the museum at some point, and they responded to that with their opinion of it.

I wonder if they kept quiet for legal reasons. Had they come out and declared it to be fake, it could've damaged the consignor to the tune of a million dollars. And then, how do they prove it's fake? Authenticators don't agree.

It reminds me of the situation a few years ago, when a well known AH which will remain nameless was offering a glove supposedly used by a very famous pre-war player, from his industrial school days. Some people opined the glove might not be authentic, and noted possible differences between the actual glove and the picture which supposedly photomatched it. As I recall, some people received, or were threatened with, cease and desist letters from attorneys.

Stating a high dollar item is fake could potentially end up in a messy situation it seems to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A statement of opinion is not defamatory. That said, the line between opinion and fact can be murky.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I wonder if they kept quiet for legal reasons. Had they come out and declared it to be fake, it could've damaged the consignor to the tune of a million dollars. And then, how do they prove it's fake? Authenticators don't agree.

It reminds me of the situation a few years ago, when a well known AH which will remain nameless was offering a glove supposedly used by a very famous pre-war player, from his industrial school days. Some people opined the glove might not be authentic, and noted possible differences between the actual glove and the picture which supposedly photomatched it. As I recall, some people received, or were threatened with, cease and desist letters from attorneys.

Stating a high dollar item is fake could potentially end up in a messy situation it seems to me.

I don't know the laws that well but I would not back down from a Cease and Desist order if what I was stating was what I thought was the truth. Freedom of speech and all... but yes, no doubt anyone can sue anyone for almost anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know the laws that well but I would not back down from a Cease and Desist order if what I was stating was what I thought was the truth. Freedom of speech and all... but yes, no doubt anyone can sue anyone for almost anything.

It is all how you word it. In my opinion it is fake is not something they can prevent you from saying.